Back when I was a kid, when someone was living a life that we perceived was full of lies, self-deception, and shallowness, we would say, “God, he’s so plastic!” Little did we know how prescient that phrase would turn out to be.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an artificial estrogen used in the manufacture of the most common plastics, in particular polycarbonate plastic, which is nearly universal in its applications across our lives: storage containers, go cups, utensils, plastic tableware, and reusable bottles are all made from it. It mimics human estrogen, making it attractive for the body to absorb, and has been found in every human being tested for it in North America. (Not surprising, given the results of biomonitoring over the past few years, which have shown the human body is becoming a virtual cocktail of toxic and non-toxic chemicals.)

Even Bisphenol A’s proponents agree that it has a tendency to “migrate” into the food and liquid that it touches, though there is strenuous disagreement as to whether this has a disruptive effect to the body’s hormonal balance (”endocrinal disruptor”) or affects reproductive capacities. (For you science wonks, here’s a flow-map showing ways in which this substance becomes metabolized, as the author says, “by a Gram-negative aerobic bacterium.” Eeew.)

Predictably, the large-scale studies on which the industry relies to support its stand that the product is safe have been bankrolled and sponsored by the industry itself and its allies. But scientists Fred vom Saal and Wade Welshons have been in the forefront of research on this substance and its effects for over 10 years, and their landmark study in 1997 has become a benchmark:

“Researchers also have known that supplemental estrogens are harmful to animals and people, especially during fetal development. Vom Saal, Welshons and other scientists were particularly interested in BPA because they knew blood proteins involved in protecting against effects of natural estrogens would not protect against the chemical. Thus, this artificial hormone could travel directly through the blood into cells and damage them.
In 1997, the MU researchers published the first scientific article detailing the effects in animals of very low environmental exposure to BPA. Vom Saal and Welshons performed a prostate and sperm count study on male mice and demonstrated that BPA caused prostate hyperplasia–excessive growth of prostate tissue–a pre-condition of cancer. Since then, other studies, both theirs and those from other academic laboratories have shown that low-level exposure to BPA caused decreased sperm production in males, accelerated rate of growth, sex reversal in frogs, early onset of puberty, chromosome damage in female ovaries and a variety of behavioral changes.”

Then in May 2003, vm Saal presented new information at the Toxicology and Risk Assessment Conference that argued:

“…scientific findings in more than 35 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals provide credible evidence that the chemical is harmful to every type of animal that has been studied, and this chemical is thus very likely to produce the same types of abnormalities in humans. These findings are based on independent academic research that has studied the effects of BPA.”

Fast forward to 2005, and vom Saal, in tandem with Claude Hughes, has a new article in Environmental Health Perspectives that sounds even more concerned, as summedn up at the website Our Stolen Future:

“Vom Saal and Hughes provide an overview of rapidly accumulating evidence in the scientific literature that current health standards for bisphenol A (BPA), a molecule used widely in commerce to which virtually all Americans are exposed, should be strengthened dramatically to protect public health. They conclude that a flood of new scientific evidence on adverse effects of BPA requires a new, formal risk assessment by relevant US agencies; none has been conducted for over 15 years.Indeed, the scientific results they summarize indicate that to keep exposure levels beneath those now known to cause adverse effects in laboratory studies, it may be necessary to restrict or even ban many common uses of bisphenol A.

Research over the past decade has established that BPA alters cellular function and disrupts developmental processes at exquisitely low levels, far beneath EPA’s current ‘reference dose’ for the compound, and at levels to which many people are exposed daily, in the US and other countries. The list of human conditions
that might be caused by BPA is long, and hence reducing exposures may provide dramatic health benefits. These could be rapid because BPA is not persistent.

Their analysis also reveals a striking pattern of bias in the reporting of research findings. In the last 7 years (through to December 2004), 115 relevant studies have been published. None of the 11 funded by industry reported adverse effects at low level, whereas 94 of 104 government-funded studies found effects. These many studies were conducted in academic laboratories in Japan, the US and Europe.”

The feds are typically cryptic about it, providing a relatively balanced resource for information, but they’re not recommending any ban on the chemical. However, a hearing was held on April 26, 2005 in California’s legislature to determine whether to ban BPA and like substances via AB 319. The usual suspects were arrayed on the expected sides: environmental groups, children’s groups, vs. the maufacturing and plastics industries. And since as California goes, so often (many years later) goes the nation, this has some national import. As far as I can tell, the bill is in committee.What happens next, I don’t know.

But as I move ahead with my brave new plasticized body into the unknown future, I can rest easy knowing George Bush is keeping us safe.